Bengaluru: A sanitation worker who had earlier claimed to have buried bodies of alleged victims in Dharmasthala has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking directions to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to complete its probe and file a final report in the case registered at the Dharmasthala police station.
The petitioner has also sought action against several individuals whom he alleges were involved in a conspiracy related to the case. He requested the court to direct authorities to consider a complaint submitted by him on December 18, 2025, and initiate appropriate action based on the findings of the investigation.
Petition seeks expeditious completion of probe
In his petition before the High Court, the sanitation worker alleged that despite the registration of a case and subsequent investigation, the SIT has not yet filed its final report before the jurisdictional court.
He urged the court to direct the SIT to expedite the investigation and submit its findings before the competent court in Belthangady without further delay.
The petitioner also sought action against persons named in a preliminary enquiry report, including certain individuals and social media content creators, alleging that they were involved in a larger conspiracy connected to the matter.
Allegations of conspiracy and inducement
The petitioner made several allegations regarding events that he claims took place during the course of the controversy.
According to the petition, activist Girish Mattannavar allegedly facilitated a phone conversation between the petitioner and actor Prakash Raj. The petitioner claimed that during the call, the actor encouraged him to cooperate with instructions given by others involved in the matter and assured him of support.
The petitioner further alleged that Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi discussed a purported plan aimed at implicating Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade and offered him financial incentives to cooperate.
He claimed that discussions were held regarding the funding of activities connected to the alleged conspiracy and that he questioned certain individuals about the source of funds being used to pursue the matter.
These allegations form part of the petition and are yet to be examined or adjudicated by the court.
Claims of intimidation and harassment
The sanitation worker further alleged that he was subjected to intimidation, coercion and harassment by certain individuals named in the petition.
According to him, he was pressured to make statements before media platforms and investigators in a particular manner. He also alleged that he was instructed on how to present his version before judicial authorities.
The petitioner claimed that some of his relatives were allegedly detained and threatened as a means of exerting pressure on him. He further alleged that he was physically and mentally harassed during the period in question.
He contended that he was repeatedly asked to provide false evidence against persons associated with Dharmasthala and that he eventually disclosed the alleged conspiracy before investigators and a magistrate.
Complaint filed after release
The petitioner stated that after being released from judicial custody on December 18, 2025, he lodged a complaint with the Dharmasthala police against individuals whom he accused of orchestrating the conspiracy.
However, he alleged that no effective action had been taken on the complaint, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.
The petition states that he informed the SIT about the alleged conspiracy and later provided details before a magistrate during the recording of his statement.
High Court issues notices
Hearing the matter, the Karnataka High Court issued notices to the state government, the SIT and other respondents named in the petition.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj adjourned the matter to June 29 for further hearing.
The court will now examine the petitioner’s request seeking directions for expeditious completion of the investigation and submission of the final report.
As the matter remains under investigation and judicial consideration, the allegations made in the petition have not been tested in court, and no findings have been recorded regarding the claims raised by the petitioner.